Saturday, December 19, 2009

Frans de Waal says many people believe that "the economy was killed by irresponsible risk-taking, a
lack of regulation or a bubbling housing market, but the problem goes deeper.
... The ultimate flaw was the lure of bad biology, which resulted in a gross
simplification of human nature," In particular, the reduction of human behavior to one motive, self-interest, is at fault (this is a much shortened version of the original):

How bad biology killed the economy, by Frans de Waal, RSA Journal: ...The
book of nature is like the Bible: everyone reads into it what they like, from
tolerance to intolerance and from altruism to greed. But it’s good to realize
that, if biologists never stop talking about competition, this doesn’t mean that
they advocate it, and if they call genes selfish, this doesn’t mean that genes
actually are. Genes can’t be any more ‘selfish’ than a river can be ‘angry’ or
sun rays ‘loving’. Genes are little chunks of DNA. At most, they are
self-promoting, because successful genes help their carriers spread more copies
of themselves. ...

[Many people have] fallen hook, line and sinker for the selfish-gene metaphor,
thinking that if our genes are selfish, then we must be selfish, too. ... [T]oo
many economists and politicians ... model human society on the perpetual
struggle that they believe exists in nature, which is actually no more than a
projection. Like magicians, they first throw their ideological prejudices into
the hat of nature, then pull them out by their very ears to show how much nature
agrees with them. It’s a trick for which we have fallen for too long. Obviously,
competition is part of the picture, but humans can’t live by competition alone.
...

Lovers of open competition can’t resist invoking evolution. The e-word even
slipped into the infamous ‘greed speech’ of Gordon Gekko, the corporate raider
played by Michael Douglas in the 1987 movie Wall Street: “The point is, ladies
and gentleman, that ‘greed’ – for lack of a better word – is good. Greed is
right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of
the evolutionary spirit.” ... Is the evolutionary spirit really all about greed,
as Gekko claimed, or is there more to it?

This line of thinking does not just come from fictional characters. Listen to
David Brooks in a 2007 New York Times column that made fun of social government
programs: "From the content of our genes, the nature of our neurons and the
lessons of evolutionary biology, it has become clear that nature is filled with
competition and conflicts of interest." Conservatives love to believe this, yet
the supreme irony of this love affair with evolution is how little most of them
care for the real thing.

In a recent presidential debate, no fewer than three Republican candidates
raised their hand in response to the question: “Who doesn’t believe in
evolution?” American conservatives are social Darwinists rather than real
Darwinists. Social Darwinism argues against helping the sick and poor, since
nature intends them either to survive on their own or perish. Too bad if some
people have no health insurance, so the argument goes, so long as those who can
afford it do. ...

The competition-is-good-for-you logic has been extraordinarily popular ever
since Reagan and Thatcher assured us that the free market would take care of all
of our problems. Since the economic meltdown, this view is obviously not so hot
anymore. The logic may have been great, but its connection to reality was poor.
What the free-marketeers missed was the intensely social nature of our species.
They like to present each individual as an island, but pure individualism is not
what we have been designed for. Empathy and solidarity are part of our evolution
– not just a recent part, but age-old capacities that we share with other
mammals.

Many great social advances – democracy, equal rights, social security – have
come about through what used to be called ‘fellow feeling’. The French
revolutionaries chanted of fraternité, Abraham Lincoln appealed to the bonds of
sympathy and Theodore Roosevelt glowingly spoke of fellow feeling as “the most
important factor in producing a healthy political and social life”.

The ending of slavery is particularly instructive. On his trips to the south,
Lincoln had seen shackled slaves, an image that kept haunting him... Such feelings motivated him and many others to fight slavery. Or
take the current US healthcare debate, in which empathy plays a prominent role,
influencing the way in which we respond to the misery of people who have been
turned away by the system or lost their insurance. Consider the term itself – it
is not called health ‘business’ but health ‘care’, thus stressing human concern
for others. ...

Social creatures

Natural selection has produced highly social and cooperative animals that rely
on one another for survival. On its own, a wolf cannot bring down large prey,
and chimpanzees in the forest are known to slow down for companions who cannot
keep up due to injuries or sick offspring. So, why accept the assumption of
cut-throat nature when there is ample proof to the contrary?

Bad biology exerts an irresistible attraction. Those who think that competition
is what life is all about, and who believe that it is desirable for the strong
to survive at the expense of the weak, eagerly adopt Darwinism as a beautiful
illustration of their ideology. They depict evolution – or at least their
cardboard version of it – as almost heavenly. John D Rockefeller concluded that
the growth of a large business “is merely the working out of a law of nature and
a law of God”, and Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs ... recently depicted himself as merely
“doing God’s work”.

We tend to think that the economy was killed by irresponsible risk-taking, a
lack of regulation or a bubbling housing market, but the problem goes deeper.
... The ultimate flaw was the lure of bad biology, which resulted in a gross
simplification of human nature. Confusion between how natural selection operates
and what kind of creatures it has produced has led to a denial of what binds
people together. Society itself has been seen as an illusion. As Margaret
Thatcher put it: “There is no such thing as society – there are individual men
and women, and there are families.”

Economists should reread the work of their father figure, Adam Smith, who saw
society as a huge machine. Its wheels are polished by virtue, whereas vice
causes them to grate. The machine just won’t run smoothly without a strong
community sense in every citizen. Smith saw honesty, morality, sympathy and
justice as essential companions to the invisible hand of the market. His views
were based on our being a social species, born in a community with
responsibilities towards the community.

Instead of falling for false ideas about nature, why not pay attention to what
we actually know about human nature and the behavior of our near relatives? The
message from biology is that we are group animals: intensely social, interested
in fairness and cooperative enough to have taken over the world. Our great
strength is precisely our ability to overcome competition. Why not design
society such that this strength is expressed at every level?

Rather than pitting individuals against each other, society needs to stress
mutual dependencies. This could be seen in the recent healthcare debate in the
United States, where politicians played the shared-interest card by pointing out
how much everybody (including the well-to-do) would lose if the nation failed to
change the system, and where President Obama played the social responsibility
card by calling the need for change “a core ethical and moral obligation”.
Money-making cannot be allowed to become the be-all and end-all of society.

And for those who keep looking to biology for an answer, the fundamental yet
rarely asked question is why natural selection designed our brains so that we’re
in tune with our fellow human beings and feel distress at their distress, and
pleasure at their pleasure. If the exploitation of others were all that
mattered, evolution should never have got into the empathy business. But it did,
and the political and economic elites had better grasp that in a hurry.

TrackBack

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"How Bad Biology Killed the Economy"

Frans de Waal says many people believe that "the economy was killed by irresponsible risk-taking, a
lack of regulation or a bubbling housing market, but the problem goes deeper.
... The ultimate flaw was the lure of bad biology, which resulted in a gross
simplification of human nature," In particular, the reduction of human behavior to one motive, self-interest, is at fault (this is a much shortened version of the original):

How bad biology killed the economy, by Frans de Waal, RSA Journal: ...The
book of nature is like the Bible: everyone reads into it what they like, from
tolerance to intolerance and from altruism to greed. But it’s good to realize
that, if biologists never stop talking about competition, this doesn’t mean that
they advocate it, and if they call genes selfish, this doesn’t mean that genes
actually are. Genes can’t be any more ‘selfish’ than a river can be ‘angry’ or
sun rays ‘loving’. Genes are little chunks of DNA. At most, they are
self-promoting, because successful genes help their carriers spread more copies
of themselves. ...

[Many people have] fallen hook, line and sinker for the selfish-gene metaphor,
thinking that if our genes are selfish, then we must be selfish, too. ... [T]oo
many economists and politicians ... model human society on the perpetual
struggle that they believe exists in nature, which is actually no more than a
projection. Like magicians, they first throw their ideological prejudices into
the hat of nature, then pull them out by their very ears to show how much nature
agrees with them. It’s a trick for which we have fallen for too long. Obviously,
competition is part of the picture, but humans can’t live by competition alone.
...

Lovers of open competition can’t resist invoking evolution. The e-word even
slipped into the infamous ‘greed speech’ of Gordon Gekko, the corporate raider
played by Michael Douglas in the 1987 movie Wall Street: “The point is, ladies
and gentleman, that ‘greed’ – for lack of a better word – is good. Greed is
right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of
the evolutionary spirit.” ... Is the evolutionary spirit really all about greed,
as Gekko claimed, or is there more to it?